Defendant's Attorney: Michael Patrick Tedman

Description: Baltimore, Maryland personal injury lawyer who represented the Plaintiff was convicted of a crime he did not commit when justice went to hell.

In 2018, Gary Washington (“Appellant”) was released from prison on a writ of
actual innocence after serving 31 years of incarceration for murder.

In the civil lawsuit that is the subject of this appeal, Appellant accused the police
officers who investigated the murder of coercing the prosecution’s sole eyewitness into
providing false testimony, which the witness later recanted. The district court granted the
police officers’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Appellant’s claims alleging
violation of due process, malicious prosecution, detention without probable cause, failure
to intervene, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It found that Appellant was
collaterally estopped from relying on the witness’s recantation in this case because another
state court had initially found that recantation incredible when denying Appellant’s
post-conviction petition for relief, despite the later in time state court ruling granting
Appellant a writ of actual innocence. The district court independently dismissed
Appellant’s alternative due process Brady claim on the merits. It additionally dismissed
Appellant’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim on the independent ground
that Appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence of severe emotional distress.
We hold that that the state court decision granting Appellant a writ of actual
innocence was inconsistent with the prior post-conviction ruling that the recantation by the
prosecution’s sole eyewitness was incredible, thereby precluding the application of
collateral estoppel. We additionally hold that applying collateral estoppel to prohibit
Appellant from litigating the alleged misconduct that led to his now vacated convictions is
incompatible with the equitable principles that underlie the doctrine.

district court’s disposition with respect to Appellant’s alternative due process claim
premised on a Brady violation. And, finally, we hold that the district court erred in
determining that Appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence of severe emotional
distress.

Outcome: Reversed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: